Ah, but that's why certain dangerous activities (like playing with weapons) or selfish activities (like using up radio bandwidth, since there's only so much to go around) need licenses. I never said that I should be allowed to detonate pipe bombs in my backyard or play with NI3 without a license;)
The few images I've occasionally ran across are just kids standing there naked or something. Now, if those images are so abundant (compared to the hardcore ones) that I have come across them randomly...
Maybe the problem here is just that enough things have happened to me that I'm used to being degraded, and seeing people degraded doesn't bother me. In which case, what should I do? Kill myself? ("If I thought I'd make a difference, I'd kill myself today, but so many are like me, lost in the fray" -bad religion)
And, um, do you think arresting people is really the best way to help society? Not to troll, but just wait until they declare some hobby of yours or something illegal...
(Besides, "sick fuck" is one of the most shortsighted expressions that has ever made its way into our langauge, in my crappy opinion. It gives people an easy way to label anything they find offensive as inherently taboo. Or maybe I just don't like human social customs. Blah.)
But how is that different from the things on rotten.com? If someone gets their body hacked and mangled, and there's a picture of it somewhere, chances are rotten.com is going to get their hands on it. Do you think that person really wanted that image on the internet?
Or, how about the recent pictures of Iraqi POWs being tortured? It's obviously embarrassing to those Iraqis!
Or are they lesser humans than us U.S.-ians? (I don't buy "All's fair in love and war")
I was more alluding to things like building explosives there, which is another piece of information that is often declared "illegal."
Of course nobody will ever have a license to cause obvious harm to other human beings for no other reason than their own (or someone else's) pleasure! heh..
But the argument is, child molesters are disturbed individuals. Do economic rules apply so simply to them? They will be disturbed and wanting to molest children regardless of the price associated. Decreasing the supply, which drives up the "price" (scarcity), is not going to make fewer people want to molest children, which seems to be implied in a lot of arguments against child pornography (it might lessen how much it happens, but it won't decrease the desire to). "Looking at dirty pictures of children" is always listed as "contributing" to the molestation of children. If I run across some random picture of some naked 12-year-old who reminds me of a girl I had a crush on in junior high, how exactly am I contributing? It's not as if I went out looking for that picture, and, unless I communicate my interest to suppliers, they probably won't even know that one more person saw that picture, because information, unlike a physical object, is easily reproducible. Do you think the suppliers sit there watching their hit-counters and access logs and think, ooh, more people are finding my site, I need to molest more kids!
Of course, is it really necessary to assume such individuals are through-and-through disturbed? That's what society argues, but, psychology is not an exact science.
But, there's a difference between taking actions whose target is the pornographers (shutting the sites down) and taking actions whose target is the general public (blocking access).
Plus, I don't understand why it's so wrong that child pornography gets exchanged. Obviously, the creation of the images in the first place is bad, but, by banning the exchange of them in addition to the creation, we're creating a legal taboo and sending a message, saying that, if you like pictures of naked kids, then, Houston, we have a problem.
What about sites like rotten.com, for people who like pictures of violence and decay? Shouldn't those images be illegal, too? Some of them are photographic evidence of criminal acts!
I don't think it's really appropriate to declare any private exchange of information illegal, ever. I don't think it's really appropriate for the government to interfere much with what property a person can own and what they can do with it. It's all paranoia. If someone wants to have guns and bombs, maybe they should be watched carefully, but the key point is, have they caused any harm to anyone or anything else yet, by merely having those items?
Maybe they just like pyrotechnics *shrug*. I know I've made gunpowder and little film-canister explosives, with the intent to detonate them just for fun, without causing harm to anyone else. Sure, maybe detonating them without a pyrotechnics license would still be a very bad idea (because then there's no guarantee I have proper training), but, if I had a license to do something dangerous, there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Nobody ever said freedom was an easy thing.
I suggest that anybody who believes in freedom like I do move out and colonize some area with me. We'll set up a country centered around freedom..
Oh wait! They already did that, it's called the U.S. of A. But then why does said country have so many laws prohibiting so many types of possessions and a few types of speech?
i was hoping for more of a "sad, but not entirely true! there's still hope! order now for your swedish internet enlarger! just visit www.undergroundinternet.com.biz.ecommerce for your trial subscription to the NEW INTERNET!" or something. you know.
unfortunately, "realist" attitudes are strikingly popular nowadays. i am still fully tongue-in-cheek, and awaiting for my style of half-seriousness, half-mockery to come back in style. but, you're right, there are always a plethora of "wake up, idiot! your opinion marks you as a clueless n00b! we don't like you! ra ra ra! there's no way in hell to have a discussion without me looking cool! you were clearly trying to offend me, and i outsmarted you! w00t!"
now awaiting the -1 moderations...;)
virtually yours, three buttcheeks and a slice of ham. mmmm, forbidden ham... DONT TOUCH ME DOWN THERE!
True, inability to get an erection is a good point. Guys are less likely to get raped, from a biological standpoint. Also, the risks from rape are greater to a girl, from a biological standpoint, because of pregnancy.
So you do raise good points. Thank you for keeping me from going entirely out of reality =)
But, if alcoholic seduction is rape, a girl is equally capable. It's true that rape by force is usually committed by males, and that rape by threat is often committed by males, but so-called date rape (which extends anywhere between knocking someone out and just taking a tipsy pal home with you) can fairly swing either way.
Believe me, if every male out there were impervious to alcohol (as most of them would like to believe), I would agree with you wholeheartedly, but, they're not. Perpetuating gender myths is holding society back... in terms of pound-for-pound strength, for example, guys and girls are about equally strong after the age of 25 or so (guys are lucky to have a short period in their young adult lives where their strength-to-weight ratio has a bit of a boost); guys are not mentally superior than girls (and can make mistakes and be misled just as easily); girls are not any less horny than guys (ever read The Sexual Life of Catherine M.?); girls can have ulterior motives and malicious intents in relationships just as often as guys; girls cheat just about as often as guys do; etc.
I mean, anybody who's smart won't spend time drinking around people they don't trust unless they are prepared to handle situations where they might be taken advantage of. In other words, don't go out drinking alone, go with friends; carry mace or pepper spray; keep a cell phone for emergency dialing; don't hang around bad parts of town late at night; don't take rides or candy from strangers; etc.
One of the problems with grey borders is that what people want to do, on a conscious level (and dealing with responsibility and physical and emotional health), is not the same as what they often want to do, on a subconscious level (=raw physical desire); this disparity grows with intoxication. In the USA, also, consent is implied unless explicitly denied. It is very, very easy for people to get out of hand with their passion and regret it later. I see it happen all too often. Fortunately, most of my friends are sane enough to take fairly good care of themselves, learn from their mistakes, and not be taken advantage of too much or too often, rather than filing rape charges against every other guy they date (like some girls are wont to do).
Humans are, for the most part, neutral. They do what they need to get what they want (even at the expense of others), but their wants are usually reasonable. Is Nature "Bad"? Many animals eat each other alive... does that make them bad?
The average person does not have a flaming desire to mutilate 1,000 bodies just for pleasure, for example.
But, the average person also does not have constant urges to donate all of his salary to charity.
Usually, it does go the other way, too, just to be fair; if a girl orders you a few drinks, takes you home and you say yes, and then you wake up the next morning and realize, "Oh my God, what the Hell was I thinking?" then, technically, she raped you.
Of course, arguably, at what point someone transitions from the thinking-clearly stage into the unable-to-decide-what-they-really-want stage is personal and subjective, which is why this law is somewhat controversial. For example, what if a girl really does have the capacity to say yes, says yes, and then later decides that the guy is a jerk, or she finds out that the guy scored better on an exam than her, and then she cries RAPE?
But anyway, that's why, whenever I go to pick up girls, I make them sign a waiver before I will order them any drinks, just so I know ahead of time (and have it in writing) that they're really ready for sex, and not just going to be easily swayed because of a chemical in their brain.
Maybe that's why I never get laid. Hmm. Nice guys finish last.. *Sigh*
And since humans learn much more slowly nowadays, it takes longer sentences to teach them a lesson, right?
The point is that humans aren't inherently bad, except in some rare cases, but some people get some fucked up ideas about ethics. So, the people who are causing significant harm get yanked out of society for a bit, deprived of some of the things they enjoy, in hopes that they will not only be negatively reinforced, but that they will also have time to think and realize why what they did was inappropriate.
Increasing sentences is only going to drive people batty.... at least, I say;)
But if you photograph people, or copyrighted things, don't you need permissions for some uses of your photographs? Like, distribution? Including distribution to law enformcent and insurance agencies?
I'm sure the person playing the game couldn't help but almost-shout his comment into the phone because he was on crack, and thus, bright and bubbly. The person on the other end was probably stoned and thus paranoid.
I'm sure that's the only reason two rational adults would have succumbed to such miscommunication and subsequent hysteria. It's obvious that rational adults are incapable of helping themselves from abusing drugs. Reagan was right! Thank God for the DEA, I don't know how the world survived before the late 20th century! BRING BACK REAGAN! YEAH! WOO!
Okay, okay, so maybe I'm overreacting a little bit. But then again, overreacting is clearly the appropriate thing to do lately, eh?;)
Here's a letter I'm sending to Monsanto, via the Contact form on their website:
It is inherently unethical to create a reproducing lifeform which is patented. Regardless of whether Schmeiser's claim that your seeds polluted his farm is truthful, you simply cannot do this without showing an ignorance of common sense, lack of comprehension for the laws of nature, and a general business ineptitude.
"Give a man a key, he cannot not open the door; give him something free and he'll resell it to the poor" -NOFX
But, assuming for a minute that your crop does not and will not ever spread:
Your crop is visibly very distinguishable from the normal crop in all stages of growth, correct?
And you make products cheaply and widely available that paralyze your crop without harming any other life form?
If not, how do you expect anybody to handle your product?
If I give you two glasses, one with wine and the other with strychnine, and they are indistinguishable, am I being fair to you?
This is the situation for many, many people in some areas of the country: I'll move near my work as soon as THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMEWHERE TO LIVE THERE besides a ditch somewhere in an industrial park.
However, the Internet is an international project. It was never supposed to be owned or regulated by any one government or regulatory body. That's my point.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but that's why certain dangerous activities (like playing with weapons) or selfish activities (like using up radio bandwidth, since there's only so much to go around) need licenses. I never said that I should be allowed to detonate pipe bombs in my backyard or play with NI3 without a license ;)
The few images I've occasionally ran across are just kids standing there naked or something. Now, if those images are so abundant (compared to the hardcore ones) that I have come across them randomly...
Maybe the problem here is just that enough things have happened to me that I'm used to being degraded, and seeing people degraded doesn't bother me. In which case, what should I do? Kill myself? ("If I thought I'd make a difference, I'd kill myself today, but so many are like me, lost in the fray" -bad religion)
And, um, do you think arresting people is really the best way to help society? Not to troll, but just wait until they declare some hobby of yours or something illegal...
(Besides, "sick fuck" is one of the most shortsighted expressions that has ever made its way into our langauge, in my crappy opinion. It gives people an easy way to label anything they find offensive as inherently taboo. Or maybe I just don't like human social customs. Blah.)
But how is that different from the things on rotten.com? If someone gets their body hacked and mangled, and there's a picture of it somewhere, chances are rotten.com is going to get their hands on it. Do you think that person really wanted that image on the internet?
Or, how about the recent pictures of Iraqi POWs being tortured? It's obviously embarrassing to those Iraqis!
Or are they lesser humans than us U.S.-ians? (I don't buy "All's fair in love and war")
I was more alluding to things like building explosives there, which is another piece of information that is often declared "illegal."
Of course nobody will ever have a license to cause obvious harm to other human beings for no other reason than their own (or someone else's) pleasure! heh..
But the argument is, child molesters are disturbed individuals. Do economic rules apply so simply to them? They will be disturbed and wanting to molest children regardless of the price associated. Decreasing the supply, which drives up the "price" (scarcity), is not going to make fewer people want to molest children, which seems to be implied in a lot of arguments against child pornography (it might lessen how much it happens, but it won't decrease the desire to). "Looking at dirty pictures of children" is always listed as "contributing" to the molestation of children. If I run across some random picture of some naked 12-year-old who reminds me of a girl I had a crush on in junior high, how exactly am I contributing? It's not as if I went out looking for that picture, and, unless I communicate my interest to suppliers, they probably won't even know that one more person saw that picture, because information, unlike a physical object, is easily reproducible. Do you think the suppliers sit there watching their hit-counters and access logs and think, ooh, more people are finding my site, I need to molest more kids!
Of course, is it really necessary to assume such individuals are through-and-through disturbed? That's what society argues, but, psychology is not an exact science.
But, there's a difference between taking actions whose target is the pornographers (shutting the sites down) and taking actions whose target is the general public (blocking access).
Plus, I don't understand why it's so wrong that child pornography gets exchanged. Obviously, the creation of the images in the first place is bad, but, by banning the exchange of them in addition to the creation, we're creating a legal taboo and sending a message, saying that, if you like pictures of naked kids, then, Houston, we have a problem.
What about sites like rotten.com, for people who like pictures of violence and decay? Shouldn't those images be illegal, too? Some of them are photographic evidence of criminal acts!
I don't think it's really appropriate to declare any private exchange of information illegal, ever. I don't think it's really appropriate for the government to interfere much with what property a person can own and what they can do with it. It's all paranoia. If someone wants to have guns and bombs, maybe they should be watched carefully, but the key point is, have they caused any harm to anyone or anything else yet, by merely having those items?
Maybe they just like pyrotechnics *shrug*. I know I've made gunpowder and little film-canister explosives, with the intent to detonate them just for fun, without causing harm to anyone else. Sure, maybe detonating them without a pyrotechnics license would still be a very bad idea (because then there's no guarantee I have proper training), but, if I had a license to do something dangerous, there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Nobody ever said freedom was an easy thing.
I suggest that anybody who believes in freedom like I do move out and colonize some area with me. We'll set up a country centered around freedom..
Oh wait! They already did that, it's called the U.S. of A. But then why does said country have so many laws prohibiting so many types of possessions and a few types of speech?
meh. fuck the audience.
;)
i was hoping for more of a "sad, but not entirely true! there's still hope! order now for your swedish internet enlarger! just visit www.undergroundinternet.com.biz.ecommerce for your trial subscription to the NEW INTERNET!" or something. you know.
unfortunately, "realist" attitudes are strikingly popular nowadays. i am still fully tongue-in-cheek, and awaiting for my style of half-seriousness, half-mockery to come back in style. but, you're right, there are always a plethora of "wake up, idiot! your opinion marks you as a clueless n00b! we don't like you! ra ra ra! there's no way in hell to have a discussion without me looking cool! you were clearly trying to offend me, and i outsmarted you! w00t!"
now awaiting the -1 moderations...
virtually yours,
three buttcheeks and a slice of ham. mmmm, forbidden ham...
DONT TOUCH ME DOWN THERE!
Hmm.. are there any circumstances where the ISP wouldn't allow forwarding through their mail servers, though?
Some of the suckier ISPs out there probably don't allow it... (except for a Sender matching the account's username@isp.com exactly, you know)
So are you saying that only businesses should be allowed to exchange email?
I mean, presumably every casual internet user connects to the internet via some business, but still...
But then how the hell are hobbyists supposed to survive next to large commercial entities?
Oh, wait. I forgot. The Internet died a long time ago.
*sigh*
True, inability to get an erection is a good point. Guys are less likely to get raped, from a biological standpoint. Also, the risks from rape are greater to a girl, from a biological standpoint, because of pregnancy.
So you do raise good points. Thank you for keeping me from going entirely out of reality =)
But, if alcoholic seduction is rape, a girl is equally capable. It's true that rape by force is usually committed by males, and that rape by threat is often committed by males, but so-called date rape (which extends anywhere between knocking someone out and just taking a tipsy pal home with you) can fairly swing either way.
Believe me, if every male out there were impervious to alcohol (as most of them would like to believe), I would agree with you wholeheartedly, but, they're not. Perpetuating gender myths is holding society back... in terms of pound-for-pound strength, for example, guys and girls are about equally strong after the age of 25 or so (guys are lucky to have a short period in their young adult lives where their strength-to-weight ratio has a bit of a boost); guys are not mentally superior than girls (and can make mistakes and be misled just as easily); girls are not any less horny than guys (ever read The Sexual Life of Catherine M.?); girls can have ulterior motives and malicious intents in relationships just as often as guys; girls cheat just about as often as guys do; etc.
I mean, anybody who's smart won't spend time drinking around people they don't trust unless they are prepared to handle situations where they might be taken advantage of. In other words, don't go out drinking alone, go with friends; carry mace or pepper spray; keep a cell phone for emergency dialing; don't hang around bad parts of town late at night; don't take rides or candy from strangers; etc.
One of the problems with grey borders is that what people want to do, on a conscious level (and dealing with responsibility and physical and emotional health), is not the same as what they often want to do, on a subconscious level (=raw physical desire); this disparity grows with intoxication. In the USA, also, consent is implied unless explicitly denied. It is very, very easy for people to get out of hand with their passion and regret it later. I see it happen all too often. Fortunately, most of my friends are sane enough to take fairly good care of themselves, learn from their mistakes, and not be taken advantage of too much or too often, rather than filing rape charges against every other guy they date (like some girls are wont to do).
Humans are, for the most part, neutral. They do what they need to get what they want (even at the expense of others), but their wants are usually reasonable. Is Nature "Bad"? Many animals eat each other alive... does that make them bad?
The average person does not have a flaming desire to mutilate 1,000 bodies just for pleasure, for example.
But, the average person also does not have constant urges to donate all of his salary to charity.
Yeah. That's how rape is defined by law.
Usually, it does go the other way, too, just to be fair; if a girl orders you a few drinks, takes you home and you say yes, and then you wake up the next morning and realize, "Oh my God, what the Hell was I thinking?" then, technically, she raped you.
Of course, arguably, at what point someone transitions from the thinking-clearly stage into the unable-to-decide-what-they-really-want stage is personal and subjective, which is why this law is somewhat controversial. For example, what if a girl really does have the capacity to say yes, says yes, and then later decides that the guy is a jerk, or she finds out that the guy scored better on an exam than her, and then she cries RAPE?
But anyway, that's why, whenever I go to pick up girls, I make them sign a waiver before I will order them any drinks, just so I know ahead of time (and have it in writing) that they're really ready for sex, and not just going to be easily swayed because of a chemical in their brain.
Maybe that's why I never get laid. Hmm. Nice guys finish last.. *Sigh*
And since humans learn much more slowly nowadays, it takes longer sentences to teach them a lesson, right?
;)
The point is that humans aren't inherently bad, except in some rare cases, but some people get some fucked up ideas about ethics. So, the people who are causing significant harm get yanked out of society for a bit, deprived of some of the things they enjoy, in hopes that they will not only be negatively reinforced, but that they will also have time to think and realize why what they did was inappropriate.
Increasing sentences is only going to drive people batty.... at least, I say
Spray-paint art on the sides of buildings, done as by professional artists as a gift to the community, might be one example.
Another possiblity is things like billboards being in the photographs.
Or, maybe, posters and such on the sides of buildings along the sidewalk (a la mid-uptown-Manhattan).
But if you photograph people, or copyrighted things, don't you need permissions for some uses of your photographs? Like, distribution? Including distribution to law enformcent and insurance agencies?
I'm sure the person playing the game couldn't help but almost-shout his comment into the phone because he was on crack, and thus, bright and bubbly. The person on the other end was probably stoned and thus paranoid.
;)
I'm sure that's the only reason two rational adults would have succumbed to such miscommunication and subsequent hysteria. It's obvious that rational adults are incapable of helping themselves from abusing drugs. Reagan was right! Thank God for the DEA, I don't know how the world survived before the late 20th century! BRING BACK REAGAN! YEAH! WOO!
Okay, okay, so maybe I'm overreacting a little bit. But then again, overreacting is clearly the appropriate thing to do lately, eh?
not a bad idea...
Here's a letter I'm sending to Monsanto, via the Contact form on their website:
It is inherently unethical to create a reproducing lifeform which is patented. Regardless of whether Schmeiser's claim that your seeds polluted his farm is truthful, you simply cannot do this without showing an ignorance of common sense, lack of comprehension for the laws of nature, and a general business ineptitude.
"Give a man a key, he cannot not open the door; give him something free and he'll resell it to the poor" -NOFX
But, assuming for a minute that your crop does not and will not ever spread:
Your crop is visibly very distinguishable from the normal crop in all stages of growth, correct?
And you make products cheaply and widely available that paralyze your crop without harming any other life form?
If not, how do you expect anybody to handle your product?
If I give you two glasses, one with wine and the other with strychnine, and they are indistinguishable, am I being fair to you?
Sincerely,
Matthew C. Williams
This is the situation for many, many people in some areas of the country:
I'll move near my work as soon as THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMEWHERE TO LIVE THERE besides a ditch somewhere in an industrial park.
*grumble*
if this is accurate, IT NEEDS MODDED UP.
please? can someone with mod points look into the validity of this statement?
No, it's because it's put out by trolltech
<grin>
I'm not from Europe. I live in the U.S.
However, the Internet is an international project. It was never supposed to be owned or regulated by any one government or regulatory body. That's my point.
It is the whole world's Internet.
Not just the U.S. Government's.
Please go home now and leave us in peace.
Thanks,
Matthew C. Williams
and a cast of thousands